Elliot Morley: It is certainly important that we raise awareness about the penalties for fly-tipping in particular. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill will strengthen the penalties that can be applied and give local authorities and the Environment Agency more powers, including on the seizure of vehicles, as my hon. Friend rightly suggests. We have been working well to raise awareness with a range of stakeholders, including the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union and the Local Government Association. I have been pleased to see the targeted action that the Environment Agency has been taking with various campaigns to seek out areas at high risk of fly-tipping and, along with the police, to stop and search vehicles.
	My hon. Friend might also be interested to know that under the BREW—business resource efficiency and waste—fund, which comes from landfill tax, we have made available to the Environment Agency £2 million in additional funds, in particular, to tighten up the permitting and transfer of waste.

Tim Yeo: I join the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) in congratulating the Government on holding the conference last week. Given the serious conclusions, are the Government worried that carbon dioxide emissions have not fallen since they came to power, that they will miss their own target for cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 2010, that their renewable energy target is no longer credible, and that because of their incompetence, British companies cannot take part in the European Union emissions trading scheme? Is it not all too clear that a far more urgent response to the threat of climate change is now needed, and that no amount of fine words from the Prime Minister will cover the gaps in the Government's policy?

Tim Yeo: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
	Is it not disgraceful that at the time when the Prime Minister is putting climate change at the heart of Britain's presidency of the European Union, Britain, along with Greece and the Czech Republic, is not even in the emissions trading scheme? We all support the principle of targets, but it will not add to the Government's credibility if they defy the clear evidence that their targets for renewable energy and cutting carbon dioxide emissions will be missed, despite the fact that, after five years of continuous economic growth under the previous Government, they inherited falling carbon dioxide emissions.
	The next Conservative Government will make transport greener, do more to promote energy efficiency for the benefit of households and business, and develop a wider range of renewable energy sources than Labour has done. Does the Minister realise that if we are to achieve our objectives and obligations, those are the very steps that the Government should be taking?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The dangers to which she draws attention are very real. The insurance industry was not represented as such at the conference. It was a conference of scientists that was convened by and run by the scientific community. My hon. Friend is right that there is increasing awareness not only in the insurance industry but, as I heard myself during recent conversations that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with the World Economic Forum in Davos, in the banks, which are increasingly warning those who use their services that their preparations for and understanding of the risks of climate change will, in the long term, be a factor in the assessment of their financial record and probity.

Ben Chapman: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on its 25th anniversary and the success of its big garden bird watch, in which nearly half a million people took part and which is important in identifying declining numbers of particular types of bird? Will he join me in congratulating the RSPB also on the stance that it has taken on the potential effects of dredging in the Dee estuary and the damage that that could cause to this important wild bird habitat? Will he urge the authorities concerned in reaching a decision on the dredging of the Dee to take a view that fully balances the important ecological considerations alongside those of commerce?

James Gray: The wild birds at Highgrove, which is just outside my constituency, will no doubt join me in congratulating my constituent, Mrs. Parker-Bowles, on the exciting news of her forthcoming marriage.
	We very much welcome the slowing of the decline of wild bird populations that the Minister described in his answer, but we remain concerned about some of the species that are still being heavily predated. Will he explain why it is that under the Hunting Act 2004 dogs may still be used for the protection of pheasants, grouse and partridge, but not for the protection of corn buntings and turtle doves?

Alun Michael: If we followed that road, we would increase the bureaucracy involved. As we have said, we want to make the single payment as early as possible, bearing in mind that very complex processes have to be gone through to achieve that. As the hon. Gentleman's question implied, no one has any doubt that in the longer term, once we have bedded in these systems, making the payment up front, at the beginning of the window, will be to the benefit of farmers, and that it is worth going through the change this year. We will consider with farmers' representative organisations what we can do to ease the transition.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly says that many people, particularly farmers on the margins, are looking to the future with some trepidation. However, it is worth pointing out that, this year, the latest farm land values show an increase of 25 per cent., with farmers buying most of it for the first time in many years. Confidence in the industry is increasing. Productivity is the big challenge. We are addressing the variations in productivity across the industry through the strategy for sustainable farming and food and the investment that we are putting in to helping the industry be more efficient and effective and to have a successful future.

Anne McIntosh: The best way in which to prevent flooding on flood plains is not simply to make the Environment Agency a statutory consultee but to make its advice obligatory for local planning authorities. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that, out of almost 3,000 planning applications to which the Environment Agency objected, more than 300 were allowed to proceed in blatant contradiction of agency advice? What is his solution?

Andy Burnham: I thank the Minister for that reply, and for the work that his Department is doing to promote the use of the countryside. The enjoyment of fishers and walkers is being seriously spoiled, however, by the growing use of off-road motor bikes in former mining areas such as the one that I represent. The Minister has indicated that he intends to legislate to tackle this problem. When will he do so? Will he also work with local councils to provide more designated areas for off-road motor biking?

Oliver Heald: May I associate myself and other Conservative Members with the congratulations extended to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his bride to be? My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said today that he is also delighted at the news.
	Is the Leader of the House able to give us the date of the Budget? He knows that I have been pressing for a long time for a foreign affairs debate so that we can have a proper discussion of developments in Africa and the middle east. It is a long time since we had such a debate: when can we expect to have another opportunity?
	Despite his notorious claim that it is just a tidying-up exercise, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the European Union Bill raises very important issues and involves consideration of the more than 500 pages that the new constitution comprises. One of the constitution's authors, the French statesman Alain Lamassoure has described it as the
	"coronation of . . . the French vision of Europe, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon vision."
	A French meal always takes a little longer, so can we have at least one more day for debate in Committee? Will the Leader of the House please reconsider the short time that has been allowed so far?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman also withdraw the remarks that he made last week criticising the commitment of the Opposition to the Northern Ireland peace process? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has always thanked my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for the co-operation extended by him and by the Opposition as a whole. Surely the national interest requires an all-party approach to such issues.
	There is concern in all parts of the House at the tactics being used by the Government to slow down information requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. That is in sharp contrast to what is happening with information about previous Governments. Some requests for more recent information are being delayed for further consideration, or refused on grounds of cost. That seems surprising, given the huge volume of documents made available speedily about the previous Government. More surprisingly, in response to two questions—on correspondence with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority during the 2002 A-level marking crisis, and departmental assessments of grade inflation—the Department for Education and Skills even claims that no papers exist.
	Can we have a debate in Government time about the tactics being used by the Government under the FOI, before it becomes known as the freedom of old information Act—or FOOI?

Peter Hain: First, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the date of the Budget yet. Secondly, I have already answered his question about a foreign affairs debate. Thirdly, he quoted rather selectively from one French person on the question of the European constitution. The truth is that, at the end of the process, every newspaper in France, Spain and Germany—and right across Europe—considered it to be a victory for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and for Britain's vision of Europe. That vision is based on a partnership of nation states, not a federal superstate.
	The policy advocated by the Conservatives would put Britain in a risky position of isolation. That would not be in our interests. We are a leading European power, and always have been. Under this Government, we intend to be right at the heart of Europe. We shall not be isolated and left to whinge on the fringe.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked me to withdraw what I said about Northern Ireland, but I will not. I have attended repeated statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and witnessed many debates, and I have seen the Opposition engage in sniping and petty point scoring. When Labour was in opposition, we gave the previous Conservative Government 100 per cent. support for what they were doing to tackle terrorism and ensure that the peace process was driven forward. I just wish that Tory Front-Bench Members would do exactly the same, in the interests of the nation and of the people of Northern Ireland.
	I remind the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that this Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act. We want it to work well. The information that has come from the Treasury about Black Wednesday has nothing to do with Ministers. However, the previous Conservative Government were responsible for what was an absolute disaster for Britain and the Opposition are embarrassed about that. That is why the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue. I can assure him that requests under freedom of information legislation will be answered in due course and in the proper way. That has started to happen already.
	On the question of A-levels, exam marking and so on, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will note the hon. Gentleman's report.
	I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not ask me for a debate on housing because the front page of today's edition of the Daily Mirror states:
	"I lost my house through negative equity. I blame the last Tory Government for that and will never forget what you did to me."
	That is not my statement, nor is it a statement of a Daily Mirror journalist; it is in the Conservative manual and guide to their election candidates, which also states that the Tories are
	"out of touch, anti-women, greedy and divided"
	as well as uncaring. That is a fitting prelude to a general election campaign.

Paul Tyler: I very much welcome what the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) said. Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall which, as the Secretary of State for Wales will know, is his premier title. He has shared in our delights and disasters, most recently the floods in north Cornwall. I am sure that the people of Cornwall will be especially delighted by today's news. On their behalf and on behalf of my hon. Friends, I wish Prince Charles and his future wife every happiness for their marriage. We shall all celebrate with the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall on 8 April.
	In his business statement, the Leader of the House did not give any indication of when he expects the Budget statement. Surely he can give some indication of when it will be.
	Can the Leader of House say whether a statement will be made on nuclear energy? He has a consistent record of opposition to the expansion and extension of the nuclear option. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has previously said:
	"We certainly do not need extra nuclear power in anything like a 10 or 15-year cycle".
	However, she now seems to have made a U-turn, so can we have an absolute assurance from the Leader of the House that there is no prospect, before or after the general election, of a change of policy on nuclear energy? Will he give us that assurance now?
	May we also have an urgent statement about the advice apparently given to the Secretary of State for Transport by the Strategic Rail Authority? This morning, The Guardian quoted the SRA as saying that there may need to be a cut of 25 per cent. in the national rail network if investment levels are not raised. Has that forecast been dealt with, can we be sure that the current overall pattern of the rail network will be maintained, and when can we expect to see a real end to the chaos and terrible consequences of the worst effects of the bungled privatisation of the rail network by his predecessors?

Kevin McNamara: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 673, signed by myself and many of my hon. Friends, concerning the position of House of Commons cleaners?
	[That this House recognises the invaluable contribution made by House of Commons cleaners towards ensuring the smooth running of this House; is dismayed with the poor pay and working conditions of the cleaners who are paid a miserly £4.85 per hour with only 12 days' paid holiday per annum, statutory sick pay only and no company pension; finds these employment terms and conditions shameful and totally unacceptable in 21st century Britain; wholeheartedly supports the claim made by the Transport and General Workers Union, who represent cleaners in the House, for better wages and improved working conditions; believes that the cleaners' claim should not be ignored or their work continue to be taken for granted; and urges the House authorities and the contractors that employ the cleaners to accept their claim for £6.70 per hour, 20 days' paid holiday per annum, company sick pay and a company pension to ensure they receive a fair deal.]
	Their employment situation is outrageous; they have low wages, no proper pension scheme and derisory holidays. Will my right hon. Friend consider, in his role as our representative on the House of Commons Commission, that the contracts awarded to third parties should be of concern to the Commission, especially in terms of the wages and conditions of some of the people on whom we depend enormously for the good functioning of the House? They are in many ways invisible, but they are necessary for us to carry out our jobs properly and they should be remunerated accordingly and their firms should not be allowed to pay them such lousy wages.

Tam Dalyell: In more than 40 years as a Member of the House of Commons, I find it inconceivable that any previous Administration, including Mrs. Thatcher's—because I asked John Wakeham about it—would have denied the House a serious debate on the question of Iraq or any similar situation. Does the Leader of the House understand that it is not good enough simply to say that the House has been kept informed? Especially after the elections, Members in all parts of the House have views on the very serious situation of what might occur with the Kurds. They have views on relations between Iraq and Iran, which, heaven knows, are delicate enough. Why are we being denied expressing those views? Bluntly, without raising the anger of MPs from Northern Ireland, to spend a day on the electoral register in Northern Ireland, yet not to discuss Iraq will be seen as very odd outside the House.

Peter Hain: I do not agree that the day to be spent on the electoral reform needed in Northern Ireland is unimportant. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland certainly takes that view, and I think that everybody involved agrees.
	Obviously, I defer to my hon. Friend the Father of the House, with his 40 years of experience, but surely he must recognise that we were the first Government to permit a vote on going to war; no previous Government had done that. That is important. It was an important debate. We have always reported to the House, and given every opportunity for hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, to express their views. [Interruption.] I respect the disagreement that my hon. Friend has with the Government on the original decision to topple Saddam and invade Iraq, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary came at the first opportunity—the first day back after the elections— and made a statement to the House. He has kept the House informed continuously. I simply do not recognise the picture that my hon. Friend has painted.

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman knows that all these matters have been agreed and implemented as part of the peace process and of cementing its detail. Obviously, as we set up the Independent Monitoring Commission, we take any report from it or recommendation that it makes seriously, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take careful note of what it says.

Anne Picking: Does the Leader of the House share my regret at the comments made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the nation of Scotland? Does he agree that the remarks were offensive and insulting, and that the people of Scotland share that feeling?

Peter Hain: That is a very good question from my right hon. Friend, and I will think about it carefully. Any Minister replying for the Government always supports the Government's view.

Peter Hain: As you will know, Mr. Speaker, there is guidance for Members of Parliament on some important issues for us in respect of the Act. The overall point is that we introduced the Act because we believed in greater transparency and accountability of government. That is what we believe in and will stick to. Despite these day-to-day processing stories that are being raised by the Opposition, in time the workings of the Act will settle down. Some complex matters are involved such as how to protect the principle of ministerial responsibility but at the same time protect the position of officials and civil servants as well as national security and commercial confidentiality. Every request has to be judged carefully, and that we are doing with scrupulous fairness.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I raise with my right hon. Friend once again the question of rail freight and the channel tunnel? A strategic rail freight network is developing on the continent of Europe, and the channel tunnel is underused and in financial difficulty, while on this side, we have an inadequate railway system that does not deliver sufficient freight to the channel tunnel. We could put 30 extra freight trains a day through the tunnel—10,000 trains a year—thus making a tremendous difference to our freight industry. We could link our industrial areas directly to the continent of Europe if we had that freight delivery system. Can we not have a full debate on the need to develop a rail freight route that links Scotland and all Britain's industrial areas to the continent of Europe?

Julian Lewis: May I tell the Leader of the House that his responses on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 sound almost as though he is auditioning for the future role of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? He certainly gave the sort of answer that we get from the present incumbent of that post.
	We need a debate on freedom of information. Of course, the Government introduced the Act, but the question is whether they did so to enable the even-handed disclosure of information or for partisan political advantage. When he says that civil servants decide such things, he should bear in mind the civil service advice that was leaked, which advised that certain aspects of the exchange rate mechanism papers should not be revealed because they might be read across and then used by the Conservatives to insist on answers to some of the questions that we have asked. They are answering the questions that are helpful to the Government. Why are they not answering questions that would be helpful to the Opposition?

Peter Hain: The shadow Leader of the House says, "Ha ha!", as he is inclined to do. Are he or the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) suggesting that the permanent secretaries in charge of Whitehall Departments, who are ultimately responsible for giving advice on these matters, are operating in anything other than an even-handed way? If so, they should get up and say so.

Meg Munn: May we have a debate on the future of the new deal programme? Many of my constituents have benefited from the new deal, but a number of people are still unemployed, despite a dramatic fall in unemployment in my constituency. Is it not time for us to look at how we can go forward with that programme and to deal with the real concerns that people may have that it might be abolished?

Peter Hain: That question was straight out of one of this morning's Conservative tabloids. When the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee for well over two hours, no one laid a glove on him. It was a dominating performance, and he answered every question directly. Far from apologising, the Prime Minister can take great credit, as now the longest-serving Labour Prime Minister, for record employment, economic stability, continuous growth, low mortgage rates, low inflation and record public investment, all of which would be put at risk if the Conservatives won the election and returned us to public spending cuts and boom and bust.

David Cairns: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report out this morning from the Community Security Trust which records a record increase in violent anti-Semitic assaults in the UK, including 28 incidents against Jewish school children and Jewish schools? [Interruption.] This is a serious issue and Conservative Members demean themselves with that sort of heckling. Will my right hon. Friend find time in the busy schedule after the recess for a debate on the increase in anti-Semitic assaults so that we send both a clear signal from every quarter of the House that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated in this society and a clear message to members of the Jewish community that their protection and safety matters as much as that of any other citizen?

Des Browne: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 20th December 2004 (Identity Cards Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	For paragraph 4 substitute—
	4.   Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the second column.
	
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses relating to the purposes and scope of registration and identity cards. 2.45 p.m. on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced. 
			 New Clauses relating to the National Identity Scheme Commissioner, Amendments relating to Clauses 24 and 25 3.45 p.m. on that day. 
			 Remaining new Clauses, Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 23, Amendments relating to Clause 26, Amendments relating to Clauses 33 to 45, new Schedules, Amendments relating to Schedules 1 and 2 4.30 p.m. on that day. 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 27 to 32 and any remaining proceedings on consideration 5.00 p.m. on that day. 
		
	
	The motion is intended to assist the House in using the time that we have available—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members might wait for the punch line before they laugh. It is intended to assist the House in using the time that we have available this afternoon for consideration on Report to the best possible effect.
	We have made good progress with the Bill so far. Indeed, it was clear from the pace with which we dealt with many parts of the Bill in Committee that, in huge part, this is not highly contentious legislation. I will put before the House the evidence of that.
	The Bill has been given proper scrutiny. Indeed, in preparation for it we had a six-month public consultation exercise, starting in 2002. There was an inquiry by the Home Affairs Select Committee, starting in 2003. There was further consultation on a draft Bill in 2004. The Government responded to all those consultations in the way in which the Bill was presented to the House.
	On the last sitting of the Standing Committee, on the afternoon of 27 January, we dealt with amendments and agreed to 20 clauses and one schedule—clauses 26 to 45 and schedule 2. That indicates how quickly progress could have been made in large parts of the Bill.
	After the first two sittings of the Committee, the Government proposed a timetable motion for the remaining consideration of the Bill in Committee. That was at the beginning of the fourth day on the morning of 25 January. The motion was agreed to only after we had spent an inordinate time debating a group of two amendments to clause 8—one hour and 10 minutes on the afternoon of 20 January followed by a further one hour and 35 minutes on the morning of 25 January. Two and three quarter hours was spent on the same group of amendments.
	A group of amendments could have justified two hours and 45 minutes, but I do not rest my case only on the time. The Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr.   Beard), had to intervene nine times to remind Opposition members of the Committee of the need to keep in order on the morning of the second of those two sittings alone. The debate was brought to a close when, unusually, the Chairman agreed to a motion that the Question be now put. I do not have extensive experience in the House, but I have served on a number of Standing Committees. I have never before known a Chairman of a Standing Committee to accept a motion that the Question be now put. It is clear to me that the Chairman, having intervened of his own volition on nine occasions, had no alternative but to do that.

Humfrey Malins: I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the programme motion, for the simple reason that it is the latest in a long line of insults to the House of Commons. We face a Government who are determined to ride roughshod over elected Members of Parliament and to get their own way at any cost. They have consistently ignored the principle of proper parliamentary scrutiny. I shall take a look at what happened in Committee in a moment but, make no mistake, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a major Bill with major implications for the lives of all of us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said in a question a little while ago, it touches on the sensitive relationship between the individual and the state, so it has enormous implications for civil liberties, and it is not just about identity cards.
	The Bill's principal purpose—not understood widely outside the House—is the creation of a national register or database under which people will be obliged to provide dozens of pieces of personal information to the Government register, to which many others will have access. If one does not supply that information there is a penalty—some say a fine—of £2,500. The Bill is clearly important and has huge constitutional and civil liberties implications.

Humfrey Malins: My right hon. and learned Friend is right, as always. What power do we have? All that we can do in practice is speak in these debates, make our protest known and vote when the time comes. That is what we are going to do.
	If ever a Bill needed detailed and thorough scrutiny in Committee, this is the Bill. It did not receive it, and that was the Government's fault. I shall tell the House what the Government did. At a stage in Committee when he did not have any justification whatever for his charge, a Government Back Bencher falsely accused the Opposition of over-long speeches and filibustering. It was an absurd allegation that was utterly rejected by the Committee Chairman. Throughout our proceedings, we had kept to the point. Yes, there were long speeches, but the Minister himself made a speech in excess of one hour. I do not criticise him for doing so—he was giving a lengthy, if unsatisfactory, response to points that we were making.
	Following that absurd intervention by a Government Back Bencher, the Government introduced knives or what people outside the House would call a viciously short timetable for the rest of the Bill. As a result, whole clauses were not debated or scrutinised. Part of clause 8 was not debated; clause 9, was not debated at all; clauses 10 and 11 were not debated at all; clauses 23, 24 and 25 were not debated at all. Those important clauses deal with the commissioner and his or her powers, as well as the provision of information about an individual without their consent. None of those clauses was debated, so they were not subject to any scrutiny. By any standards, that is a disgrace.
	After the Committee's proceedings had finished, the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported. It said that the Government's identity card and register proposals raised "serious questions" about possible breaches of human rights and it regarded Ministers' failure to explain why they believed their Bill was compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 as "deeply unsatisfactory". I warned the Government on day one of the Committee that the Joint Committee would shortly report, and I suggested gently, because that is my style, that they wait for that report so that we could consider it during our deliberations on the Bill. The Government did not take any notice of my suggestion whatsoever. It is ludicrous that we had to go through the entire Committee stage without the benefit of that important report.
	One might ask whether there was a good reason for that unseemly hurry and ridiculous rush. I believe that the main motive of this utterly discredited Home Office is to secure some last-minute headlines before the general election. It wants to give the appearance of being tough, but it has completely ignored the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of a vital Bill. Today, Members on both sides of the House wish to speak to amendments and new clauses that they have tabled, including the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and his hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The hon. Member for Walsall, North is wholly against his Government, and has as much right as any hon. Member to speak to his amendments. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his colleagues have tabled a number of amendments, and they have the right to speak to them.

Humfrey Malins: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. Increasingly, in recent years, right hon. and hon. Members have wondered what is the point of tabling an amendment or coming to the Chamber to try to debate something, as there will be a guillotine and their contribution will be cut out. That has a serious impact on parliamentary democracy.

John Gummer: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, but I hope that he accepts that, because many Conservative Members take such comments seriously, we need a constant reminder that when we are returned to Government automatic guillotining will stop. That has not been stated with sufficient strength, and until my hon. Friend does so his comments lack moral authority.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend is right. The situation contributes to lack of turnout not just in elections, but, I would venture gently to suggest, among colleagues throughout the House of Commons, who feel that it is not worth turning up.

Richard Allan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention; the amendments are important, as I have said. The Scottish National party did not have anyone on the Standing Committee, and this is its only opportunity to raise issues—my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) also raised them, and there was an interesting debate about them—about people who live in remote Scottish areas.

Richard Allan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct and I have a lot of sympathy with his point. I come from one of the more compact parliamentary parties in this Parliament and for us to cover all legislation is a challenge. Report is an important opportunity for smaller parties to intervene and if that is curtailed, there is nowhere else for them to be heard.

Richard Allan: That intervention was entirely helpful. People often say that the debates in the House are meaningless, because all parties come in with a single party Whip and troop through the Lobby, not having listened to the debate or changed their minds. This afternoon, we are dealing with precisely the sort of issue on which people will engage in debate and on which they may change their minds, as has been shown by the course of our proceedings so far. It is on precisely this sort of issue that we need additional time on Report.

Richard Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those mathematical calculations. Even at the speed at which I customarily speak, it would be difficult to get through those amendments in that time.
	Briefly, I shall tell the Minister off, if I may, in my own gentle style for one point that he made in his introduction. He said that there were certain points on which we made progress in Committee. I will be completely honest: there were times when we had too little time in Committee and on other occasions people spent too long debating matters that did not need so much time. I am not going to pretend that everything in Committee worked smoothly, but the reality was that the Committee did not have sufficient time overall. There were occasions on which hon. Members such as I felt that we ought to assist in making some progress in order to get on to other things, so we did not spend as much time debating clauses as we wanted. Having tried to be co-operative and helpful, we find it a little difficult to have that thrown back at us afterwards, as if to say, "You went through these clauses quickly, so everything was fine and they were non-contentious." I want to put that on the record, because it is not an entirely fair comment.
	If we stick to the timetable that we have before us, hon. Members will be asked to vote—I must be careful with my imagery—for a pig in a poke. That is the correct metaphor to describe what we are being asked to buy: something about which we do not have sufficient detail. In my party, we do not want to buy this pig at all. We have made our position clear on the Bill. The Conservatives have explained that they do not yet know enough about the pig, and that what they have seen they do not like. I understand that they are officially planning not to vote at all. However, we will be united in voting against the programme motion, which is essential if we are to have the detail that we need to make a proper informed decision. That is, after all, what we should be here to do.

John Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman not be taken in by the Government's use of the word "timetable"? "Timetable" suggests that time is available; this is a guillotine motion that is designed to cut off debate. It is a foreign motion and a foreign word, and we should pronounce it in a foreign way. We should vote against the guillotine motion.

Mark Fisher: This is a major Bill, because it takes us into wholly uncharted waters in terms of the relationship between the individual and the state, yet we are trying to discuss it in one afternoon—the shortest of the week. It may not be a constitutional Bill, but it is semi-constitutional, in that it distinguishes a new era for the relationship between the individual and the state. A sane Parliament would give it at least two full days of debate.
	Like other hon. Members, I supported the Bill on Second Reading, but with considerable reservations. I did not object to the card itself, but had many reservations about the details, such as the role of the commissioner, what will be on the register and our ability to access and change erroneous material on it. I was hoping, and thought that I had assurances from the Government, that many of those things would be addressed and changed in Committee, but I cannot see that they have been. This is the first opportunity for Back Benchers such as me, who have serious and growing reservations, to hear the debate and participate in it—yet, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, we simply will not have enough time.
	This is a hugely important Bill and once we pass it, the relationship between individuals and the state will never be the same again. I regret bitterly that this afternoon we will be so constrained in our consideration. The Government are making a huge error.

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(8).
	The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 131.

[Relevant document: The Fifth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2004–05, on the Identity Cards Bill (House of Commons Paper No. 283).]
	As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	National Identification Scheme

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 5—Commencement and continuation in force of certain provisions of this act—
	'(1)   This section applies to the following provisions of this Act—
	(a)   section 5(2) to (6),
	(b)   sections 6 and 7,
	(c)   section 9,
	(d)   sections 15 to 17, and
	(e)   sections 19 to 22.
	(2)   The provisions of this Act to which this section applies may only—
	(a)   be brought into force, and
	(b)   continue in force,
	   in accordance with the provisions of an order under this section.
	(3)   The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless he is satisfied that either the conditions in subsection (4) or the conditions in subsection (5) are met.
	(4)   The conditions in this subsection are that—
	(a)   an emergency within the meaning of Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (c. 36) has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur, and
	(b)   it is necessary to make arrangements under the provisions of this Act to which this section applies for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency.
	(5)   The conditions in this subsection are that—
	(a)   a public emergency within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights exists in the United Kingdom, and
	(b)   it is necessary to make arrangements under the provisions of this Act to which this section applies for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the public emergency.
	(6)   The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
	(7)   No order under this section may provide for the continuation in force of a provision of this Act to which this section applies for more than a period of twelve months.'.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 2, leave out clause 1.
	Amendment No. 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out 'previously'.
	Amendment No. 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert
	'during the previous five years'.
	Amendment No. 43, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, after 'resident', insert
	'during the previous three years'.
	Amendment No. 2, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert
	'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.
	Amendment No. 3, in clause 3, page 4, line 14, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert
	'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.
	Government amendment No. 52.
	Amendment No. 44, in clause 5, page 4, line 43, at end insert
	'(d)   state that the individual does not consent to be included in the Register on the basis of the application.'.
	Amendment No. 4, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert
	'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.
	Amendment No. 5, in clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert
	'(1A)   An ID card may only be issued for the purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme].'.
	Amendment No. 45, in clause 10, page 9, line 5, after 'card', insert
	'and about whom there is an entry in the Register'.
	Amendment No. 34, in clause 12, page 10, line 30, after 'circumstances', insert
	'save details of a change of address for any place where he has lived for a period of less than three months'.
	Amendment No. 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 9, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert
	'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.
	Amendment No. 50, in clause 15, page 14, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'evidence' in line 13.
	Amendment No. 51, in clause 15, page 14, line 13, leave out from 'himself' to end of line 14.
	Amendment No. 61, in clause 17, page 15, line 39, after 'he', insert 'reasonably'.
	Amendment No. 62, in clause 17, page 15, line 41, at end insert
	'(1A)   Information provided under this section shall be limited to—
	(a)   a person's full name,
	(b)   his date and place of birth,
	(c)   his address, and
	(d)   his current residential status (which shall mean his nationality and his entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom).'.
	Amendment No. 7, in clause 43, page 36, line 35, leave out from 'the' to end of line 36 and insert
	'Register established as part of the National Identification Scheme under section [National Identification Scheme];'.
	Amendment No. 8, in clause 43, page 36, line 37, leave out '1(5)' and insert
	'[National Identification Scheme](4)'.
	Amendment No. 9, in clause 43, page 36, leave out line 41.
	Amendment No. 63, in clause 45, page 38, line 17, after 'from', insert
	'the provisions to which section [Commencement and continuation in force of certain provisions of this Act] applies'.
	Amendment No. 64, in clause 45, page 38, line 20, leave out 'to bring' and insert
	'under this section to bring certain'.
	Amendment No. 10, in schedule 1, page 40, line 15, leave out paragraph (h).
	Amendment No. 13, in schedule 1, page 40, line 32, at end insert
	'and the number of any ID card issued to him, which numbers shall be the same'.
	Amendment No. 14, in schedule 1, page 40, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).

John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the position that we now face, would it be convenient for the Chair not to use the expression, "With this, it will be convenient"? It is not convenient for the House; we are proceeding in the current manner because we have to. That is altogether different.

Humfrey Malins: I have made it quite clear that the significant difference is that we want to insert in the Bill a reference to terrorism, which we believe is very important.
	I want to illustrate the uncertainty that exists among Ministers by quoting some exchanges between them and others in the past. In 2002, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), the then Home Secretary said that he would not rule out the possibility of the cards making a
	"substantial contribution to countering terrorism".—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 236.]
	He said on a later occasion that they could make a contribution towards countering terrorism, but that it would not be their primary purpose. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was taking a break from ministerial office at the time—otherwise he would not have asked these questions of the then Home Secretary:
	"May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether he accepts that it is for those who are in favour of the card to make a case for it, not the other way round? Secondly, will he confirm that the card will be little or no use in combating terrorism? Thirdly, given the unhappy history . . . of Government information technology projects, are we not entitled to be sceptical about some of the claims made for the card?"
	The Home Secretary replied:
	"I can say yes to all three."—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 231.]
	So there are serious doubts on this matter.

David Winnick: I should like to speak to new clause 5. In the limited time available, I want to explain that it aims to limit the use of identity cards to dealing with terrorism or an emergency, and that it would introduce the necessity for the Government to seek parliamentary approval every year. As I have explained elsewhere, including on Second Reading, I do not accept that identity cards would help in the fight against terrorism. They would certainly have been of no assistance during the 30 years of IRA violence and murder.
	Nevertheless, the Government put great emphasis—more than on anything else—on the view that identity cards would help in the fight against terrorism. Therefore, I believe that, if we are to have such cards, their use should be confined to terrorist outbreaks or the kind emergency that I describe in the new clause. It would then be necessary for the Government to come to the House of Commons to defend and justify their view that such an emergency was about to occur, and to seek the approval of Parliament for the use of identity cards—incidentally, we have not had such cards for more than half a century—and then, if Parliament gives its approval, it would do so on the basis of 12 months. Obviously, the Government would then come back if they require a renewal of powers given by Parliament for that purpose.
	For all those reasons, we should confine identity cards along the lines that I have suggested. I hope that the Government will consider the matter more carefully than they have done.

Lynne Jones: I went to the Vote Office just before the debate began, and it was not available.

Richard Allan: I want to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 42 to 45, which address issues raised in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report.
	Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 would restrict the amount of historic address information. That came up in Committee, and we did not receive a satisfactory answer. We want to ensure that any address information is necessary and proportionate to that which is sought to be achieved, and we are not yet clear what the bounds of that are.
	Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are important, particularly amendment No. 44, which has cross-party support and on which we would seek to divide the House, as it is intended to break the link between applications for passports and ID cards. The Committee pointed out that assigning ID cards to those who apply for passports is a fairly arbitrary method. Those who have passports are the very category who do not need ID cards. Therefore, we would seek to make the scheme genuinely voluntary by breaking that link. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment on that basis. If the Government want compulsion later, they can use clause 6 powers to introduce compulsion in a much more open and transparent way, rather than using the passport system.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 20, in clause 24, page 21, line 15, leave out third 'and'.
	Amendment No. 21, in clause 24, page 21, line 16, at end insert
	'and
	(e)   the workings of the Identity Card Scheme and the Register including complaints made to him in relation thereto.'.
	Amendment No. 15, in page 21, line 17, leave out from 'Commissioner' to end of line 33 and insert
	'include general policy matters, but do not include—
	(a)   the exercise of powers which under this Act are exercisable by statutory instrument or by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I.1979/1573 (N.I.12)) unless any particular case affected by these powers or rules raises a concern of substantial public interest;
	(b)   the imposition of civil penalties, objections to such penalties or appeals against them, unless a particular penalty, objection or appeal raises a concern of substantial public interest;
	(c)   the operation of so much of this Act or of any subordinate legislation as imposes or relates to criminal offences in any particular case, unless a particular case raises a concern of substantial public interest;
	(d)   the provision of information to the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service or the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters in any particular case, unless the provision of information in any particular case raises a concern of substantial public interest; or
	(e)   the provision to another member of the intelligence services, in accordance with regulations under section 23(5), of information that may be provided to that Director-General, Chief or Director in any particular case, unless the provision of information in any particular case raises a concern of substantial public interest.'.
	Amendment No. 23, in clause 24, page 21, line 18, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c).
	Amendment No. 16, in page 21, line 33, at end insert—
	'(3A)   'The Commissioner may, where appropriate—
	(a)   before undertaking a review which includes the policy towards the provision of information to the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service or the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters, liaise with the Intelligence Services Commissioner with a view to referring responsibility for that review to that Commissioner, or
	(b)   liaise with the Information Commissioner in relation to any processing of personal data.'.
	Amendment No. 24, in clause 24, page 21, line 45, at end insert
	'to a maximum of ten members of staff'.
	Government Amendment No. 56
	Amendment No. 17, in clause 24, page 21, line 46, after 'section', insert—
	'"Information Commissioner" means the Commissioner established by the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29);'.
	Amendment No. 18, in clause 24, page 21, line 47, at end insert—
	'"personal data" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29).'.
	Amendment No. 26, in clause 25, page 22, line 3, leave out from 'must' to 'about' and insert
	'lay before each House of Parliament a general report'.
	Amendment No. 27, in clause 25, page 22, line 5, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
	'(2)   The Commissioner may also, at any time, lay before each House of Parliament such other reports on any matter relating to the carrying out of those functions as the Commissioner thinks fit.'.
	Amendment No. 28, in clause 25, page 22, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
	Amendment No. 29, in clause 25, page 22, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment No. 35, in clause 25, page 22, line 8, leave out 'annual'.
	Amendment No. 36, in clause 25, page 22, line 9, at end insert 'and (2)'.
	Amendment No. 38, in clause 25, page 22, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert
	'would cause substantial harm to the public interest'.
	Amendment No. 37, in clause 25, page 22, line 12, leave out from 'security' to end of line 15.
	Amendment No. 39, in clause 25, page 22, line 12, at end insert 'serious'.
	Amendment No. 40, in clause 25, page 22, line 13, leave out from 'crime' to 'or' in line 14.
	Amendment No. 25, in clause 25, page 22, line 14, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 15.

John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it not important for us to know exactly when the Government's response to the Joint Committee's report was deposited in the Vote Office? If information is supposed to be available before the debate, surely considerations of reasonableness must apply? Did the Government intend to put the response in the Vote Office only today? Was that an insult, incompetence, or a combination of the two? I think that we ought to be told.

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman is correct. A typical circumstance that someone may take to the commissioner is that in a financial transaction a bank has denied them access to financial services or they have been hauled up on suspicion of doing something they had not done, because the identity card checking process has gone wrong somehow, as it will do in some cases.
	In Committee, we discussed the fact that there will be a trickle-down effect. Banks will be offered a voluntary service for checking people against the identity register and will be charged for that service. That is in the Bill. But then the Government could come along with money-laundering regulations that will make the process mandatory if the banks want to be in the clear under those regulations. There will be a trickle-down effect; the ID card could come into play for a huge range of everyday transactions, for all of which people might want to go to the identity commissioner.
	We must take the amendments seriously. They try to remove some of the restrictions that the Government have placed on the ability of the commissioner to carry out his or her work. Governments increasingly like commissioners for all sorts of things. We have seen how some of them—for example, the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, and the data protection commissioner, Elizabeth France before him—can build their roles and perform a good function. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards performs an effective function. The measure of that is the extent to which commissioners can criticise Ministers and the Government, on a serious and well-founded basis, and have that criticism accepted.
	Well-functioning commissioners have an important role in making criticisms of particular instances and in drawing lessons from them to show why the system is flawed. That is what we want the identity commissioner to be able to do. If, as we fear, the identity card system contains serious flaws, we want the commissioner genuinely to be able to highlight them and bring them to Parliament so that we can hold an informed debate and either scrap the scheme or change it, depending on the depth of concern. Our fear is that unless we accept some of the amendments or the Government make their own proposals to strengthen the commissioner's hand, the commissioner will be too weak.
	The Government, like previous Governments, have been desperately keen to avoid judicial review of anything that they do. It now seems to be built into legislation—Ministers do not like being hauled up before the courts and told that their legislation is poor. I suspect that the commissioner process is part of that. The Government hope that the commissioner will deflect some of the criticisms that might otherwise come through the courts and be directed at a Minister.
	I fear that the proposed commissioner system will still leave citizens having to take the judicial review route, which is much less satisfactory than being able to put the case to the commissioner, particularly in respect of the exclusion applied to the commissioner looking at the way that fines are levied. As we understand it, the Secretary of State, almost personally, will be taking people to court. The Secretary of State will take people to the county court saying, "You owe me £1,000 because you didn't register. You didn't notify your change of details or do x, y or z." The county court could send the bailiffs round if a person did not pay up. The Government are trying to avoid poll tax martyrs, so they have set up a complicated civil recovery scheme, yet the commissioner, unless the clause is amended, will have no power to look into that system.

Douglas Hogg: I shall be brief, because this is a time-limited debate. I shall confine myself to three points. First, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made an important point. It is certain that errors will be made with regard to individuals. One of the problems about the Bill is that the individual will not be well placed, perhaps not placed at all, to identify the fact of an error or to challenge it. The advantage of the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is that it will make it possible for a citizen, using the procedure set out in new clause 4, to identify errors of fact made in relation to them. Once an error of fact has been identified, corrective action is possible. I say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that new clause 4 goes directly to the anxiety that he has properly expressed.
	Secondly, looking at the wide powers set out in clause 25(4), one has to accept that, in reality, they give the Secretary of State of the day the power to amend at will the report of the commissioner. Phrases such as
	"would be otherwise contrary to the public interest,"
	and
	"prejudicial to  . . . the continued discharge of the functions of any public authority"
	are so wide that there are few Secretaries of State who could not bring their own prejudices within the parameters of those phrases. And of course the discharge of that amending function is not reviewable, which takes one back to new clause 4. If new clause 4 is accepted, individuals—whether they be Members of this House or someone else—will be able to say, having obtained that information, that the exclusion of material from the commissioner's report is unreasonable and does not fall within the language of this Bill and either raise it as a parliamentary matter or seek judicial review of it. That is particularly important when one reflects that the commissioner might well wish to use his annual report as a vehicle for criticising the Government's use of the scheme. It would be intolerable if the Secretary of State was able, by using the language of clause 25(4), to delete that criticism.
	My final point is that my own preference, and one that I commend to the House, and through this House to the other place, is the approach recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, namely, to approve new clause 4 or something like it and to amend the language of clause 25(4) broadly in terms of amendment No. 38, which is in this group, so as to remove the offensively wide language on which I have addressed the House.
	As time is pressing, that is all that I wish to say, although were time not so limited, I would wish to say a lot more.

Des Browne: I rise to oppose the new clause and amendments to speak to amendment No. 56, which I think, when I explain it, will give some significant comfort to hon. Members, especially those who espouse the provisions of new clause 4. Amendment No. 56 in substantial measure covers exactly the same ground as new clause 4, although there are qualifications, which I shall come to in a moment.
	Before I deal with the new clause and amendments and the questions that I have been asked—to the extent that I am able to answer them—it is important that I put on record the position in relation to the Government's response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report. I am disappointed at the way in which hon. Members have implied in the House that the Government were dilatory or that there was some attempt not to make the information available to Members of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I might say that those observations were made to some degree in bad faith because no one asked me about the matter at any point or made any inquiries about the true circumstances.
	The fact of the matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is correct. The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights requested that the Home Secretary respond to the Committee's report within seven days and named the date of 7 February. The letter that was sent from my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights was dated 26 January, and it arrived at the Home Office and was received by the Home Secretary on 28 January. He responded by 8 February, which was one day out. Bearing in mind the fact that the report was received two days after the date of the letter that accompanied it, I do not think that that is a matter of serious criticism.
	I think that all hon. Members have now had access to the letter, and they will see that its final paragraph contains an appropriate request to the Chair of the Joint Committee that with her permission, which was sought by implication in the request,
	"it would be helpful . . . to make this reply available to the House for the remaining stages of the Bill on 10th February."
	That permission was given yesterday, and the letter was deposited in the Vote Office before 10 o'clock this morning. Nothing could have been done in any sense any quicker, and I do not think that there can be any criticism of the way in which the Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have acted in relation to this issue.

Des Browne: I will give way to the hon. Member for  Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), since I understand that he is a member of the Joint Committee.

Richard Shepherd: I am a member of the Joint Committee. Of course, the drumbeat of Home Office legislation that touches on human rights matters is so great that we are running behind the Government. That is the difficulty that this huge volume of legislation places on us, as well the constraints that lie within it. It is in the Government's gift to make reasonable the passage of Bills and the deliberation of Select Committees. That is all this is about.

John Bercow: I am afraid that that simply will not do. I have the very highest regard for the Minister's ability, as he knows. Moreover, I do not on a daily basis make partisan points for the sake of it—when the Government are right, I am quite happy to say so—but what we have just heard in relation to this matter from the Minister is a very shabby piece of buck-passing. No hon. Member on the Floor of the House is suggesting for one moment that the timetable for the activities of the Joint Committee, or those of any other Committee, should properly be a matter for the Minister. Does the Minister not accept that one is entitled to say that the Government should operate on a joined-up basis? If the Minister did not know what the Whips Office had in mind when scheduling the Bill's consideration on Report and Third Reading, he certainly should have done. It should have been his priority to do everything that he could to ensure that the Joint Committee's report was available for consideration by Members well before today's debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 6—The Register and CCTV Systems—
	   'Use of the National Identity Register in conjunction with CCTV systems shall be considered to be directed surveillance for the purposes of Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23).'.
	Government amendment No. 53.
	Amendment No. 46, in page 19, line 43 [Clause 22], after 'information', insert
	'not falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1'.
	Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
	Amendment No. 47, in page 20, line 1 [Clause 22], after 'person', insert 'in the United Kingdom'.
	Amendment No. 30, in page 20, line 13 [Clause 23], leave out 'reasonably practicable' and insert 'possible'.
	Amendment No. 32, in page 20, line 26 [Clause 23], leave out from 'person' to end of line 28.
	Amendment No. 31, in page 20, line 47 [Clause 23], at end insert—
	'(6)   The Secretary of State must not make any regulations under this section unless a draft of such regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.

Richard Allan: I am grateful to the Minister.
	New clause 6 merits a much longer debate, but I shall spend just a few minutes on it now. It springs from a question that arose in my mind as I was reading Jane's Police Review—my normal bedtime reading—which is a police product review that describes the products that are available to the police. It talks about the use of biometric technology in combination with technology such as closed-circuit TV cameras. This country has more CCTV cameras per head of population than anywhere else. There are 4 million of them out there, and they have their uses. However, one use to which they had not been able to be put, because the technology was not there, was the real-time monitoring of people as they go round the streets. They are used for evidence gathering and deterrence, but if we were to move to such monitoring, it would be a significant change.
	Tim Lott writes in the Evening Standard tonight:
	"For most of us, liberty is a feeling rather than the difference between jail and freedom—but it is a feeling I value tremendously. The idea of being able to go about my private business without being stopped by a policeman, or observed by a secret camera, strikes me as something many of us so take for granted that we can't imagine what it would be like to lose it."
	That is at the heart of this issue: the idea that we could be monitored everywhere we went changes the feeling that we have as we go about our business. We are trying to test that in our proposals, and to understand whether the protections that Parliament has rightly put in place—including the legal safeguards under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which establish who authorises any surveillance, what suspicion has to be shown, and what thresholds apply—will apply under the new regime if the Government have their way. Questioning that is justified. Jane's Police Review provides some lovely quotes—for example:
	"The co-ordinated national use of intelligent tracking systems . . . which can piggyback onto the CCTV network is viewed within the service as something of a holy grail."
	I accept that it may be a holy grail for law enforcement purposes, but it is not necessarily a holy grail for privacy. Throughout this debate, we have tried to argue that law enforcement measures are necessary, but they must always be necessary and proportionate in respect of the invasion of privacy that takes place. It is a delicate balance to strike, and we are trying to establish whether it has gone too far.

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the balance that we must always strike. We want both, and the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A clear principle is established in the Human Rights Act, which he and his Government support, whereby breaches of privacy can take place if they are necessary and proportionate to that which we are seeking achieve. Throughout discussion of the Bill, we have tried to establish where that boundary is. It is possible to have a complete surveillance state. It is possible for CCTV cameras to scan everybody, with a record of where everybody in the country is at any particular moment. The technology will enable that. The decision for us is whether the benefit of being able to catch additional criminals outweighs the potential loss of privacy and freedom. We are approaching that debate with an open mind, and we are seeking to establish those boundaries in the new clause.

Des Browne: I feel that I must speak to the Government amendments, which are responsive to issues raised in Committee. When clause 22 was debated, I undertook further to consider some of the issues and I have proposed three Government amendments, two of which would make amendment No. 47, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), redundant. Government amendments Nos. 53 and 55 restrict the bodies to whom information can be provided without consent to public authorities, as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act—
	It being half-past Four o'clock Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day,] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	New clause 3 disagreed to.
	It being after half-past Four o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put the remaining Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 58 to 60, and 75 to 78.

Des Browne: During debate in Committee, I undertook to look again at the legal status of the counterpart driving licence, which forms part of the definition of a UK driving licence in clause 28. The clause lists the identity documents to which the clause 27 offences of possessing false identity documents apply. Doubts were raised at the time about whether the counterpart—that is, the paper part of a photographic card driving licence—should be considered an identity document.
	On 3 February, I wrote to the Chair of the Committee with the results of my consideration, which I will briefly summarise. Both the photocard licence and the counterpart have to be produced to the police and courts in certain circumstances relating to road traffic offences. Many people of course still hold valid paper driving licences that incorporate the counterpart. However, the Road Safety Bill, currently before Parliament, will enable the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to create an electronic driving record that will be available to the police. The legislation includes a provision to remove references to the counterpart in existing legislation. It is anticipated that the Bill, if enacted, would not come into force until about 2007 or 2008.
	In view of the intention to abolish the counterpart licence, I have decided that we should simplify the definition of a UK driving licence by removing it from clause 28(3)(c) in respect of that offence. I therefore invite the House to agree to the amendment.
	Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60 bring the commissioner and his staff within the remit of the clause 29 offence of unauthorised disclosure of information. Disclosures made as part of the commissioner's functions will not be caught by the offence, but clearly it would be unacceptable for the commissioner's staff to make unauthorised disclosures of information to which they had access as a result of their employment. I see no reason why such behaviour should not be criminalised. It is therefore right that the clause 29 offence should be extended in the way proposed in Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60, and I invite the House to accept them.
	Government amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78 restructure the offence in clause 31 of tampering with the register and Government amendment No. 77 is a technical amendment which replaces "is" with "may be". It is not intended to be a substantial change. The effect of amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78 is to make it clearer that it is a defence to a charge under this clause to have an honest and reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief that the modification made to the register was authorised. The way in which a prosecution under clause 31 would work is as follows. The prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant caused a modification of the register and that the modification was unauthorised. "Unauthorised" is a term defined in subsection (5); it is an objective concept.
	It would be a defence for a defendant to show on the balance of probabilities that, notwithstanding the lack of objective authority, he held a reasonable subjective belief that the modification was authorised. I consider that the amendments structure the offence in a clearer way, and I urge hon. Members to support them.
	I have nothing further to add on this group of amendments, and I commend them to the House.

Richard Allan: I echo the hon. Gentleman's comments. This is an example of constructive Committee work. We had to go through the clauses to which these amendments relate fairly quickly. It would have been good to spend a little more time on them in Committee. The issues that we picked up are ones that the Government have accepted.
	I raised the issue of the counterpart driving licence as much as anything so that I could highlight the ridiculous system for getting a replacement driving licence. If one loses the whole licence, it is considerably easier to get a replacement than if one loses one part of it. The Minister has told us today that there is a broader solution to that, which will filter its way through to the provisions in the Bill, and has tabled amendments for that purpose. That is entirely welcome.
	The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) raised the point about whistleblowing or public interest disclosure. We feel that it is an important one. People should be able to report abuses of the system. We felt we had good reason for that because there have been abuses of other systems such as the police national computer, and they have resulted in prosecutions. Fortunately, they are few and far between, but when they occur it is important that no one feels legally constrained in making allegations if they are justified.
	Both sets of amendments are thoroughly welcome and non-contentious. I hazard to suggest that if we had longer in Committee we could have made even more helpful suggestions to improve a Bill that the Liberal Democrats do not want to see go through, but wish to do what they can to make less bad.

Lembit �pik: I want to pin the Secretary of State down on the question of terrorism. Will he explain exactly how a voluntary identity card will protect us against terrorism? If identity cards are to become compulsory in 10 years, does he think that the war on terror will still be being fought in 2015?

John Gummer: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that I voted and spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading? I attended all the debates on the Bill to seek to continue that support. I have to tell him that the way in which he treated the Housethe failure to enable me to ask a number of questions on key issues and the time given, which did not allow his junior Minister to respond to many of the debateshas led me to believe that indeed we should act differently, and I shall vote against the Bill.

Charles Clarke: Those right hon. and hon. Members who come to the view that they must cast their vote against, either for the reasons just given by the right hon. Gentleman or by others, are taking a position that I can understand, though I do not agree with it. I cannot understand those who say, We shall abstain on this key issue that is facing the country. I believe that it is a matter of internal politics within the main Opposition party and a betrayal of the interests of the country. If, in the final event, we are not able to carry through the proposed legislation in this Session, we will know clearly that that is because of the decision taken by the Oppositiontheir decision to put peace within their party ahead of the national interest.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

David Davis: So much for the constructive and open debate on liberty and freedom and on security of the state that the Home Secretary was so keen to tell us we would have when we talked about identity cards and house arrest, an issue on which he is in even more trouble.I join him, at least in one respect, in thanking those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report. At the same time, I sympathise with them in what must have been the most frustrating process of their political lives.
	The Bill attempts to strike a balance involving a number of extremely serious issues: individual privacy, the relationship of the citizen and the state versus security, prevention of fraud, control of immigration and a number of other serious issues. That is why I set some tests for the Bill on Second Reading. I did not just want to test individual practicalities but to establish the balance between those principles and the Bill's competence to achieve some of the things that the Home Secretary talked about. A competent Bill would do what he said and that would, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, have a significant effect in improving security. It would make a minimum intrusion into the liberty and privacy of the individual, and there would be strong safeguards where such intrusions proved necessary. An incompetent Bill would have a weak or non-existent impact on security, the prevention of fraud and the control of immigration. It would prove highly expensive and too intrusive into liberties, and would provide few effective safeguards for those liberties.
	The point of those five tests is to establish, as I said, the balance or imbalance between those serious principles, which matter, as the Home Secretary rightly said, and the competence or incompetence of the proposal. Having read all the Hansard reports of the Committee and listened to today's debate, which I attended when I could, I do not think that we have had a real or persuasive answer to any of the tests. It is not only our questions that remain unanswered. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said on page five of its report on the Bill:
	Explanatory notes to the Bill have been published. They do not, however, contain any explanation of the Government's reasons for believing the Bill to be compatible with the Convention rights.
	The next part is important:
	We consider the absence of such an explanation to be deeply unsatisfactory in a Bill which is concerned throughout with issues of personal privacy, and with the delicate balances to be struck between individual rights to private life and the protection of the community.
	That is not the stated view of the Conservative party but of the important and distinguished all-party Joint Committee on Human Rights. We are not the only ones to have reached the conclusion that we have had a dreadfully inadequate set of answers to an important set of questions as well as dreadfully inadequate time in which to debate those questions.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman has not been here all day, so he is not qualified to comment on the Bill, as he lacks the information or attendance record to do so.
	The first test in that important series of tests deals with clarity of purpose. That matters, because it has implications for every other aspect of the Bill. As I said at the outset I, like the hon. Member for Walsall, would be persuaded as a sceptic to support the measure if it had the aim of dealing with terrorism. We tried to include that aim in the Bill, but we failed, because the Government refused to do so. We tried to make the priorities explicit, but Ministers refused. Foreign travellers, particularly from the European Union, can come here under EU rules without identification for three months, which means that the Bill is quite inadequate for use as an anti-terrorism measure, unless we have a way of dealing with that problem. The common travel area is another problem, as is the issue of Ireland, which I shall address in a moment. Those issues may be soluble, but there has not been a single attempt to answer our questions. If identity cards are an anti-terrorism measure, it should be made compulsory to carry them, otherwise they will not work. I do not want to have such a compulsory card in this country. As has been said, we do not want to hear our policemen saying, Papers please, citizen. However, there has been not been any attempt to answer the problem.
	The Bill could have been used to tackle illegal working but before we introduce a draconian measure we should try everything else first. For several years under this Government, under legislation that the Conservatives passed to make the employment of illegal immigrant workers a crime, there was one successful conviction a year. Only after the tragedy at Morecambe bay and the brave campaign of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith)she is a Labour Member, but I am happy to give her creditand, I am afraid, a campaign by my party on the failure of Government policy that led to the departure of a Minister, have we gone from one conviction a year to well over 600 operations a year against employers of illegal immigrant workers. That is what must be done first; instead of throwing away liberties, the Government should do their job.
	On benefit fraud, we have again not been told all. The Home Secretary told us that the provisions will save us tens of millions of pounds; the cost of the scheme may be tens of billions of pounds. I hope that he is never Chancellor, because with that sort of return on capital, the Government will go bankrupt very quickly.

David Davis: No; I will not give way because I am pressed for time.
	The next issue is the high value of the database, which will be an extremely large target that will attract attack. Putting aside the weaknesses on biometrics, the Government have not even tried to answer how they will prevent those attacks, which will destroy the system.
	Test three concerns cost, which has gone from 1.2 billion to 3.5 billion to 5.5 billion. Conventional wisdom puts the overall cost somewhere between 10 billion and 20 billion. Bart Vansevenant, the director of the organisation that runs Belgium's ID card system, has said that
	the amount of people you catch will not be worth the price of the infrastructure . . . If you look at this from a distance and look at the goal, I'm afraid a lot of money will be wasted and the real cost will be much higher than any of the figures currently suggested.
	How will the Government control the cost? They do not have a good track record. Would that money be better spent on trying to stop illegal immigration, terrorism and benefit fraud?
	The final issue concerns civil liberties and privacy. In the words of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), this is the largest change in relationship between the individual and the state. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, has said:
	There are huge questions about access to the national identity register: who has access to it, for what sorts of purposes, and how is that information to be used.
	As the debate has progressed, it has become increasingly apparent that many organisationsmore than we thoughtwill have access to the database, which means that the scope for unauthorised access will be unmanageable. There is even the possibility that the data must be shared with other countries such as Ireland, because of the common travel area.

Richard Allan: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who just made the speech that he wanted to make on Second Reading, but was not allowed tohis speech was better late than never, and it was a pleasure to hear it tonight. He was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the previous Parliament, and he knows a lot about systems and what can go wrong with them, so the warning that he has issued again tonight is appropriate.
	The Liberal Democrat position is based on both principle and practice. At various points, it has been put to us that those two ideas are contradictory and that one must oppose the Bill on the grounds of either principle or practice. However, some policies are so flawed and so offensive that one can oppose them on the grounds of both principle and practice, and tonight's debate is such an occasion.
	The Minister has challenged us a number of times to discuss the issues of principle, and I thank him for those challenges, which were appropriate. I boil the matter down to the extent to which one values privacy. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights concerns privacy. It states that states have the right to breach the right to privacy, where such a breach is necessary and proportional to the end that they are trying to achieve. That clearly shows that there is no absolute right to privacy and that it can be breached under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, a threshold needs to be set. The Liberal Democrat view is that the Minister's ID card proposals do not meet that threshold, and that the benefits he suggestsif they can be realisedare not sufficient to outweigh the disbenefits, in terms of the cost to the privacy of citizens of the United Kingdom.

Richard Allan: The hon. Lady is right to remind us that the scheme being put forward is not necessarily comparable to ID card systems in other countries and goes a lot further. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) referred to the Home Secretary's unfortunate turn of phrase when he said that the cards will allow people to assert their right to be in the United Kingdom.
	The Government are essentially proposing to put us all on a criminal intelligence database and to treat us all as potential suspects. That creates a fundamental change in the relationship between state and citizen. The scope of the database that the Government propose is far more comprehensive than any that has been suggested elsewhere. Indeed, the Minister himself has said at various points that the scheme that he is putting forward is bigger and more complex than anyone else's. He said that with a certain note of pride, and then with a slightly hysterical look of fear as we came to consider the implications of doing something more comprehensive than is to be found anywhere else.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall let the hon. Member try again but I hope that he will not take up too much time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The record will show that. This particular occupant of the Chair does not have such recall but I am sure that the record will show whether that is correct.

Neil Gerrard: I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. My position has always been clear. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading and the more I hear about it, the less I like it. I shall vote against it again this evening.
	I agree with one point that the Home Secretary made. I do not agree with much that he said about the measure but he was right about the Tory Front-Bench position. It is pathetic not to be able to reach a decision about whether to vote for or against such an important measure on Third Reading. We have had a limited time for debate this afternoon but what are the reasons for that? The usual Front-Bench channels made agreements to discuss the measure on a Thursday, when there is one less hour for debate, so those on the Tory Front Bench are shedding crocodile tears.
	Listening to the debates on some of the amendments this afternoon, I felt as though I was listening to discussions about angels on pinheads, because, however we amend the Bill, we cannot make it acceptable. What it sets out to do is fundamentally objectionable. The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised a host of objections to it, and I have just had a brief chance to read through the Government's response to them. It does not really answer them.
	On Second Reading, we debated issues such as whether the cards would become compulsory. I am absolutely sure that it will become compulsory to have this card, because the Home Secretary said on Second Reading that this was the first step towards compulsion. We also discussed disclosure to service providers, the police and people in the private sector, and the audit trail that will exist. The real problem with this measure will be the register, rather than having to carry a card.
	The public's view on this will change. At the moment, we might find 80 per cent. of people saying that they support the measure, but once they realise that they are going to have to have these things, their view will change. Once the next, short step is taken, as I believe it undoubtedly will be, and carrying the card becomes compulsory, public opinion will certainly shift. We are going down a very dangerous road.
	Everyone here knows which people will be the most likely to be asked to produce their card when it becomes compulsory to carry one. All the evidence from every European country that has cardsincluding those where they are voluntaryshows that the people who are most often asked to produce their card are from minority ethnic communities. To pretend, as the Government did in their race relations assessment, that this measure will actually improve race relations, strikes me as absurd.
	I do not like enabling legislation of this kind. A mass of detail remains to be introduced in secondary legislation, which means that it will never be properly debated in this place. Of course, we cannot amend secondary legislation, so whatever form it takes, we shall just have to take it or leave it. I am also unconvinced that the Home Office can produce information technology infrastructure that will work, which could perhaps be the saving grace in all this. This concept is fundamentally flawed in principle, and we should not be going down this road.

It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 64.

Karen Buck: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for his drawing the short straw of replying to the Thursday Adjournment debate.
	Before I begin, I want to declare the ultimate non-pecuniary interest. My feelings about St. Mary's hospital are motivated in no small part by the fact that over the past 25 years it has seen me through serious illness, major surgery, a cancer scare and the birth of my child. So I am committed totally to the hospital and its place in what, if we get it right, will be one of the most exciting hospital developments that has ever been attempted in this country.
	The time is drawing near for a decision on the future of St. Mary's hospital in the context of the Paddington health campus. The fact that this has been a difficult decision to takeit has been seven years in planning and developmentis not surprising, given the fast-changing backdrop of the development of health policy and the complexity of the specific scheme in the very heart of London. It is understandableindeed, it is right and properthat such a project should be rigorously scrutinised and meet the demands of the future, as defined in 2005, as much as it would have done when it was first conceived not far off a decade ago.
	I have no argument about the fact that the scheme has been subject to rigorous scrutiny in the Department of Health and elsewhere, but my worry and the reason why I requested this debate is that some of the negative publicity that has accrued to the scheme over the years, and even the old ennui factor that is inevitably attendant on a scheme that has been so long in gestation, may have obscured some very important central facts and prevented us from the viewing the scheme and the new offers that are being made to facilitate it at this late stage clearly on their merits.
	I do not intend to dwell on some of that negative publicity, although it is important that its existence is not denied because it provides a proper context for the debate. I merely wish to point out that the whole concept of the Paddington campus has had its opponents from the beginning, and they have been largely motivated by opposition to the closure of Harefield hospital. That is in many ways understandable from their perspective, but I very much regret that the local concern that has been expressed has muddied the waters a great deal around the campus itself.
	The key fact is that the Paddington health campus continues to offer us an extraordinary, once-in-a-generation opportunity to renew and improve health care in north-west London. The most recent business case presented to the Department just before Christmas has the backing of all three local primary care trusts, the strategic health authority, clinicians from all three of the participant hospitals and the medical school, patients and the patients organisations, Conservative-controlled Westminster city council, the Mayor of London and theCommission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Indeed, in response to a question that I asked a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister described it as extraordinary, imaginative and state of the art. I could describe a politicalwith a small pcoalition of that kind as implausible. In fact, I have never known that breadth and depth of support across agencies in 25 years in public life.
	It is worth recapping for a moment the importance of the scheme and what it has to offer. Combining heart and lung services with acute general specialist services will dramatically improve patient care for the seriously ill, children and those with complex health problems. All the renowned expertise of the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals, Imperial college postgraduate research and teaching centres and St. Mary's hospital will be available to patients on a single site. The two hospital trusts and Imperial college have a tradition of research into improving health care, linking science to medicine. Harefield has the largest European heart and lung transplantation programme. The National Heart and Lung Institute at the Brompton hospital is an internationally recognised five-star research centre, and St. Mary's is a leading research centre into infection in its own right. Bringing together all that research with Imperial college's world-renowned expertise will enable a major centre for research to be created, which will strengthen London's standing internationally, as well as directly benefiting patient care. However, a few myths need to be demolished for the record.
	Myth No. 1 is that this is some kind of bloated super-hospital, a dinosaur from a bygone age and a over-ambitious amalgamation that is in danger of looking old-fashioned before it has even started. In fact, it is two hospitals on one site, with parallel academic development. It is not a single hospital, but a way to reduce costs by relocating three existing hospitals on to one site that is strategically located, with superb communications available to it that are not available anywhere else in north-west London. It is adjacent to Paddington station and, I hope, to a new Crossrail site, with easy access to Heathrowa location advantage that cannot be replicated on any other site in inner, north or west London.
	Myth No. 2 is that the campus will lock London into a surplus capacity of NHS beds. In fact, the Paddington health campus assumes that the requirement for 15 per cent. of routine surgery will be supplied by the private sector, and most routine elective surgery will be carried out in other hospitals in north-west London in any event. The campus has been designed to deal with complex tertiary work at St. Mary's and the new Brompton and Harefield, with St. Mary's also providing emergency services with appropriate backup for the local population, as at present.
	Myth No. 3 is perhaps the most important of the myths doing the rounds: there is a quicker, cheaper and easier alternative. Relocating the Brompton and Harefield and rebuilding St. Mary's on this inner London site is complex and challenging, but the value-for-money case is strong. The other optionsthere must be other options because doing nothing is neither clinically nor financially viableremain tentative in financial and planning terms. Significant cost benefits could be enjoyed by pooling central services, such as administration, payroll, catering and a range of others. It is estimated that revenue savings of 20 million a year could be made, but they would not materialise under other options that involved upgrading the hospitals separately or using any other configuration.
	If we did not proceed with the campus, it would not reduce the need to move specialist heart and lung services away from Harefield hospital, or modernise the Brompton and St. Mary's facilities. If detailed capital and revenue cost plans for alternative options exist to demonstrate that they would represent better value for money, and all their details on the cost of such things as land assembly and planning permission have been scrutinised to the extent of those for the Paddington health campus, I am not aware of it.
	All the arguments in favour of the Paddington health campus have been strengthened even more in recent days by the latest offer from Westminster city council to reduce the cost to the NHS of the land deal required for the campus. The council has offered to broker land deals in a manner that would cut both the cost and complexity of the scheme. That would represent better value than all previous options and would save the NHS in excess of 60 million more than the existing scheme. The capital surplus would be increased, the steady state operating position would be substantially improved and contingent liabilities would be greatly reduced.
	Westminster city council can explain its own motives for the latest offer. However, it would be true to say not only that it is committed to maintaining a local hospital with international teaching excellence, but that it sees the scheme as a further step in the wider regeneration of the Paddington area. The retention and improvement of hospital facilities is thought of as not only being of direct benefit to people, but allowing further redevelopment throughout the Paddington basin. The campus is one piece of a jigsaw that has already included the introduction of the Heathrow Express, the refurbishment of Paddington station, the 62 million Paddington bridge project, the establishment of 97,000 sq ft of office space and 922 residential units, and substantial changes to education provision. There is more to come, including Crossrailthe hybrid Bill will hopefully be introduced in the near futurea potential business improvement district, the re-provisioning of the City of Westminster college, and a major new affordable housing development.
	Additional benefits have already included 7,000 permanent jobs, thousands of construction jobs and huge investment in the local economy. That was much needed when we remember that despite the mythology of Westminster's uniform prosperity and the fact that it includes some of the most prosperous parts of the country, the four wards immediately surrounding Paddington are among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in the country. Other wards in the surrounding district are among the 30 per cent. most deprived in the country.
	When critics say, as they sometimes do, that the campus development has been seven years in the making and has yet to reach fruition, it would be true to say, So has Paddington. The Paddington that we knew seven years ago when the health campus began to evolve is not the Paddington that we see now, because at that stage there were no academy schools or plans for the redevelopment of the secondary sector, no business improvement districts, and no immediate prospect of the blight on the Crossrail development being lifted. The project has been fluid and constantly changing, so inevitably land assembly deals have had to be done. Additionally, the hospital has been subject to constant re-evaluation because as health needs change, capacity needs change. It would be unfair to make harsh judgments about the Paddington campus without appreciating the momentum of the whole regeneration scheme.
	If the final decision is taken to rebuild St. Mary's hospital alone, I am confident that a fine teaching hospital will continue to be available for my constituents. St. Mary's is not a hospital that is any longer fit for purpose, because many of its buildings are inappropriate for a 21st century hospital. It is absolutely essential to redevelop the hospital, ideally within the campus site. If it is not situated on the campus site, however, it will continue to provide first-class services. The quality of services within St. Mary's was recognised when it won the Dr. Foster's hospital of the year award three years ago, when it received its star ratings and when, only a few weeks ago, it was included in the latest wave of possible foundation status hospitals.
	I am more worried about the long-term viability of institutions that will not benefit from the scale and concentration of resources. Without the campus, health facilities in north-west London will continue to suffer from fragmentation and dispersal, with services for children in particular increasingly at risk. The failure to consolidate heart, lung and paediatric specialties would deny patients the opportunity to improve the quality of care for complex medical conditions in particular.
	The case for the campus clinically, in terms of overall value of money and regeneration, is compelling. The chance, once lost, will not come again. Given the new financial impetus that has been afforded by Westminster city council's latest offer on land assembly, I urge the Minister to take back the message that the scheme must proceed. I look forward to hearing his comments and hope that we get the clearest possible indication that, after all these years, those who looked forward to having the most prestigious hospital teaching and research developments in Europe will, at last, be satisfied.